Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al.

S.D. California

Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al.

DecidedJanuary 5, 2026

Docket3:23-cv-00567

StatusUnknown

This text of Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al. (Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SAINT BROWN, et al., Case No.: 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL

13 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 14 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 15 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO RECOMMENDATION; and HOUSING LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. (2) APPROVING PETITION FOR 17 MINOR’S COMPROMISE AND 18 FINDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAIR AND 19 REASONABLE 20 [ECF Nos. 99, 102] 21

22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minor’s Compromise for 23 Plaintiff’s T.B., L.B., C.B., and B.B. ECF No. 99 (“Petition”). The Court referred the 24 matter to Magistrate Judge Brian J. White for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 25 ECF No. 100. The R&R recommends granting the Petition. ECF No. 102 (“R&R”). The 26 parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R within 14 days of the date of 27 the order. R&R at 6. 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 2 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 3 de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made[,]” 4 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 5 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 6 F.2d 614, 617 (9" Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 7 || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 8 ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 9 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003). 10 On December 30, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation Waiving Objection 11 ||Period on R&R and indicated that neither party intended to file objections or otherwise 12 || oppose the R&R. ECF No. 103. There being no objections to the R&R, the Court having 13 ||reviewed the R&R, finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 14 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brian J. White’s R&R; (2) 15 || APPROVES the Petition for Minor’s Compromise and Finds the Proposed Settlement Fair 16 || and Reasonable. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: January 5, 2026 19 Soar Str, 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SAINT BROWN, et al., Case No.: 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL

13 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 14 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 15 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO RECOMMENDATION; and HOUSING LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. (2) APPROVING PETITION FOR 17 MINOR’S COMPROMISE AND 18 FINDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAIR AND 19 REASONABLE 20 [ECF Nos. 99, 102] 21

22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minor’s Compromise for 23 Plaintiff’s T.B., L.B., C.B., and B.B. ECF No. 99 (“Petition”). The Court referred the 24 matter to Magistrate Judge Brian J. White for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 25 ECF No. 100. The R&R recommends granting the Petition. ECF No. 102 (“R&R”). The 26 parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R within 14 days of the date of 27 the order. R&R at 6. 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 2 ||judge’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district judge must “make 3 de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made[,]” 4 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 5 made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 6 F.2d 614, 617 (9" Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the Court “need 7 || only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 8 ||recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment; see 9 || also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9" Cir. 2003). 10 On December 30, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation Waiving Objection 11 ||Period on R&R and indicated that neither party intended to file objections or otherwise 12 || oppose the R&R. ECF No. 103. There being no objections to the R&R, the Court having 13 ||reviewed the R&R, finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 14 || Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brian J. White’s R&R; (2) 15 || APPROVES the Petition for Minor’s Compromise and Finds the Proposed Settlement Fair 16 || and Reasonable. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: January 5, 2026 19 Soar Str, 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saint Brown, et al. v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saint-brown-et-al-v-camp-pendleton-quantico-housing-llc-et-al-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack